Valentine's Day
Posted: Mon Feb 13, 2017 4:56 pm
Tomorrow in Oklahoma the Legislature will vote on a measure that requires women to get the father's permission before having an abortion. The father of the fetus, not their own fathers, though for all I know they need this too.
The bright new leader who proposed this idea, Mr. Humphrey, told The Intercept that: “I believe one of the breakdowns in our society is that we have excluded the man out of all of these types of decisions,” he said. “I understand that they feel like that is their body,” he said of women. “I feel like it is a separate — what I call them is, is you’re a ‘host.’ And you know when you enter into a relationship you’re going to be that host and so, you know, if you pre-know that then take all precautions and don’t get pregnant,” he explained. “So that’s where I’m at. I’m like, hey, your body is your body and be responsible with it. But after you’re irresponsible then don’t claim, well, I can just go and do this with another body, when you’re the host and you invited that in.”
I have bolded these words for emphasis - no idea whether they were bolded by Mr. Humphrey or not. The people running around shouting and brandishing their copies of The Handmaid's Tale look less disconnected from reality with every passing moment. The HOST? Does he really mean to appropriate the most radical pro-choice language there? Is the fetus a mere parasite? A colonist? Or is he maybe a satanist who literally views the pregnant woman as a consecrated piece of flesh?
However, to his credit, Mr. Humphrey had intended to include a provision in his bill which requires fathers to pay for child support from conception onwards, and his stated motive of wanting men to be involved in pregnancy is not, on its face, a bad one. But what legal means of establishing this would cause more good than harm, and very bad harms at that? The moral question is a little trickier. If you're married to one of the Jerry Sanduskys of the world, you might contemplate suicide before letting him co-parent a child, and so abortion might be a no-brainer. But what about other cases? Harder to say.
And the bigger question, if I can summon any charity towards this person, is important for our society: what causes people to invest more in their relationships and family responsibilities? It's not like government policy is a magic wand that can accomplish this, but we're certainly doing a lot right now to drag families down and make it as hard as possible. I don't think a permission slip for abortions is the way that will happen, but somehow men need to have a sense that commitment to raising their kids is vital. I'm not saying everyone used to act that way, but at least it was the social norm. Marriage was a social norm, kids having two parents a norm, and so on.
The bright new leader who proposed this idea, Mr. Humphrey, told The Intercept that: “I believe one of the breakdowns in our society is that we have excluded the man out of all of these types of decisions,” he said. “I understand that they feel like that is their body,” he said of women. “I feel like it is a separate — what I call them is, is you’re a ‘host.’ And you know when you enter into a relationship you’re going to be that host and so, you know, if you pre-know that then take all precautions and don’t get pregnant,” he explained. “So that’s where I’m at. I’m like, hey, your body is your body and be responsible with it. But after you’re irresponsible then don’t claim, well, I can just go and do this with another body, when you’re the host and you invited that in.”
I have bolded these words for emphasis - no idea whether they were bolded by Mr. Humphrey or not. The people running around shouting and brandishing their copies of The Handmaid's Tale look less disconnected from reality with every passing moment. The HOST? Does he really mean to appropriate the most radical pro-choice language there? Is the fetus a mere parasite? A colonist? Or is he maybe a satanist who literally views the pregnant woman as a consecrated piece of flesh?
However, to his credit, Mr. Humphrey had intended to include a provision in his bill which requires fathers to pay for child support from conception onwards, and his stated motive of wanting men to be involved in pregnancy is not, on its face, a bad one. But what legal means of establishing this would cause more good than harm, and very bad harms at that? The moral question is a little trickier. If you're married to one of the Jerry Sanduskys of the world, you might contemplate suicide before letting him co-parent a child, and so abortion might be a no-brainer. But what about other cases? Harder to say.
And the bigger question, if I can summon any charity towards this person, is important for our society: what causes people to invest more in their relationships and family responsibilities? It's not like government policy is a magic wand that can accomplish this, but we're certainly doing a lot right now to drag families down and make it as hard as possible. I don't think a permission slip for abortions is the way that will happen, but somehow men need to have a sense that commitment to raising their kids is vital. I'm not saying everyone used to act that way, but at least it was the social norm. Marriage was a social norm, kids having two parents a norm, and so on.